On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 04:28:47PM +0400, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote: > Hi, Jarek. > > On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 02:28:50PM +0200, Jarek Poplawski ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > wrote: > > I wonder if it's very unsound to think about a one way list > > of destructors. Of course, not owners could only clean their > > private allocations. Woudn't this save some skb clonning, > > copying or adding new fields for private infos? > > There should not be any additional allocations, since they are very > slow, that part of mbuf is really horrible for performance - openbsd > hackers removed additional allocation of mbuf tag in PF code during the > last hackathon, which doubled its performance, that is why skb has only > one control structure and data area, which incorporates additional > control information, thus there is no need for multiple destructors.
Of course, my knowledge of this is far not enough, and maybe I got this reversed, but from Andi's words I've understood that linux prefers another (mixed) approach, so I've thought such list should be a consequence... Thanks, Jarek P. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
